 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Bartolomeo v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., NO. CV 980410808S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN, AT NEW HAVEN, January 5, 2000, Decided , January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insured who brought a bad-faith claim against the insurer was entitled to a discovery order to compel the insurer to produce redacted portions of the claims file and to compel the adjuster to answer questions objected to on privilege grounds.
|
|||||
| Bonito v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., CV 99088136S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Declaratory judgment was denied because policy language was unambiguous that supplemental replacement cost endorsement only applied to coverage on dwelling.
|
|||||
| Buffin v. Buffin, FA 990078862S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 5, 2000, Decided , January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to modify child support denied; although his income decreased due to disability, upward deviation from presumptive child support was justified because defendant received contributions from new spouse.
|
|||||
| Dileo v. Willis, CV 970073703, CV 970074103,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD, AT LITCHFIELD, January 5, 2000, Decided , January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for dismissal was denied, since plaintiffs proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence the essential elements of their negligence complaints.
|
|||||
| Dominguez v. Warden, 544002,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas corpus relief could not be granted to petitioner no longer in custody; additionally the good time statutes were inapplicable to him because his crimes were committed after October 1, 1994.
|
|||||
| Fields v. Giron, CV 990360414S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, January 5, 2000, Decided , January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's injury from defendant's use of truck and block and tackle to remove tree from frozen pond did not trigger motor vehicle exception to workers' compensation law's prohibition of co-employee suits.
|
|||||
| Ford v. Ford, FA 990169979S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother was given primary physical custody of her son and was allowed to relocate to another city as it was in the best interests of the child; father was given liberal and reasonable rights of parenting time.
|
|||||
| Jimenez v. Warden, 547012,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON, January 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Larobina v. First Union Nat'l Bank, CV 990170845,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK, AT STAMFORD, January 5, 2000, Decided , January 5, 2000, Filed and Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proof for summary judgment as to counts three, four and 10; defendant bank raised a material issue on whether plaintiff was in default in payment of the terms of his home equity loan.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
